I have serious doubts that this is ever going to happen. Aperture is a tiny chunk of Apple's business, and the RAW compatibility team must be a tiny chunk of ﻿that﻿. They'd have to devote even more resources than usual to the task, as the sensor requires an entirely different interpretation from 98% of the others out there (and look at how much trouble Adobe's having with it, considering that the relevant team is a much larger piece of their organization). This is why I think that Fuji should be offering assistance and not the other way around - work will be done on compatibility when enough X-Trans cameras are sold, and more X-Trans cameras will be sold if compatibility improves.

and move on to Lightroom 4. Adobe seems to be very fast updating for new cameras. And contrary to many people here, I have managed to get some decent results out of X-Pro 1 Raw files in Lightroom 4.3, but I only use Raw in very difficult light situations to increase DR and color control in post.

and move on to Lightroom 4. Adobe seems to be very fast updating for new cameras. And contrary to many people here, I have managed to get some decent results out of X-Pro 1 Raw files in Lightroom 4.3, but I only use Raw in very difficult light situations to increase DR and color control in post.

I've been using LR to play around with some RAW file and have not come across any of the problems some are reporting. I don't doubt there was an issue but Adobe look to have resolved it from what I can see.

I've been using LR to play around with some RAW file and have not come across any of the problems some are reporting. I don't doubt there was an issue but Adobe look to have resolved it from what I can see.

and move on to Lightroom 4. Adobe seems to be very fast updating for new cameras. And contrary to many people here, I have managed to get some decent results out of X-Pro 1 Raw files in Lightroom 4.3, but I only use Raw in very difficult light situations to increase DR and color control in post.

That is much, much, much easier said than done for a lot of us. I have around 40,000 pictures in Aperture (I can only imagine how many a pro photographer would have), most of which are carefully organized and keyworded. The prospect of translating all of that over to Lightroom is a nightmare...especially since ﻿for my tastes﻿ the organizational system in Aperture is 10x better. I do prefer the way LR handles noise, though, and will often process anything over ISO 1600 in LR or ACR before sending it back into Aperture. Which, obviously, is not the most streamlined of workflows...but whatever, leave me alone!

When they released GH2 support during a big update, I posted in the Mac forum about a bug with the GH2 processing on my system.

Apple contacted me directly, said they had seen the thread on DPR and gave me the access credentials to an FTP server to upload sample files and a system log.

A few weeks later a fix was issued.

Apple seem very responsive to feedback, and it appears, actively go and seek it out. I'm not sure that would extend to the Fuji forum here though!

I think one of three things is happening:

a) They have decided not to support it, like Foveon sensor based camera. Or,

b) They need to wait till Apeture 4 (X) to support it directly because the processing algorithm doesn't fit into their current pipeline. Or,

c) They need to wait 'til Apeture 4 (X), which might introduce a way to plug in third party raw processors into the pipeline, so it will then lie with camera manufacturer to provide an Aperture plug-in.

C is unlikely, but I live in hope! The end of intermediary TIFFs!

Skeptics may say a fourth option is Apple is abandoning Aperture, but while that's always a possibility, it's not one I'm entertaining as likely anytime soon.

I do appreciate the information given about LightRoom and any other software that is, but the subject of the thread is: Fuji X-trans & Apple Aperture .

The OP's question was about encouraging Apple to provide support for the X-trans sensor, not about what software does provide support for it and how well.

Thank you for your understanding.

-- hide signature --

Nicolas

I missed the part that you are the new elected forum police and are to judge what is ok to reply and what is not...

I am not a troll and I did not offen anyone with my post. And I think that this conversation can be very well extended to alternatives, wether you like it or not.

I got my first Apple computer in the early 80's and have a long history as a cutomer and shareholder with this company. And it has been proven to be very hard to push Apple to do anything that is not on their own agenda.

The "pressure" to get support for Fuji's X-Trans and EXR sensor RAW files will never gain the magnitude of the "Antenna gate" where Apple in the end told us that "we are holding it wrong and here is a bumper for those who can't figure it out"

Many people have left Aperture for various reasons and went to look for other alternatives instead of hoping and pleading that Apple will change this or support that. Apple has been quite bad with their pro apps maintenance and updates and we might just have to accept that they leave this market to other companies like Adobe who put all of their resources behind it while Apple focuses on the more profitable "simple user" as they outnumber the pro's by magnitudes.

To make a long story short, I would rather spend my time exploring alternatives and use my time productively editing photos with another software than hanging in the "RAW" air if it is that important to me.

Or just stick with Aperture and the fantastic JPG files from the X-Pro 1 / XE1 and be happy if Apple ever decides to support Fuji X-Trans RAW

That is much, much, much easier said than done for a lot of us. I have around 40,000 pictures in Aperture (I can only imagine how many a pro photographer would have), most of which are carefully organized and keyworded. The prospect of translating all of that over to Lightroom is a nightmare...especially since ﻿for my tastes﻿ the organizational system in Aperture is 10x better. I do prefer the way LR handles noise, though, and will often process anything over ISO 1600 in LR or ACR before sending it back into Aperture. Which, obviously, is not the most streamlined of workflows...but whatever, leave me alone!

I understand that and at the time where I had to decide to go for (the erly version of) Aperture or Lightroom both products were very close in quality. And organizing in Aperture does seem to be much better!

But with every day you wait and every photo you take the hurdle gets higher and higher to ever switch.

There are a few options that you have if you do want to switch. You can:

A) Leave all 40.000 old photos in Aperture (no need to delet it. HD space is cheap) and start with all photos taken in 2013 to be imported into LR.

B) Leave the photos in Aperture intact and only import a copy of the photos with the adjustments you have already made in Aperture as JPG or TIF into LR.

Many people have left Aperture for various reasons and went to look for other alternatives instead of hoping and pleading that Apple will change this or support that. Apple has been quite bad with their pro apps maintenance and updates and we might just have to accept that they leave this market to other companies like Adobe who put all of their resources behind it while Apple focuses on the more profitable "simple user" as they outnumber the pro's by magnitudes.

Many have also left and come back, having regretted leaving. Leaving is a big decision which may lead to regret, you shouldn't be so eager to push others into it just to make yourself feel better about your choice or because you are angry at Apple.

Aperture came first and was only the raw workflow tool of it's Kind.

Ligthrooom was announced as a free public beta to stem the adoption of Aperture which was getting a lot of publicity. It was a great tactic and did the trick.

But by the time of LR V1, Aperture was a superior mature product, restricted in its quest for domination by being a Mac only product. But the list of advantages Aperture held was long, substantial and significant. Some photographers switched to Mac just to run Aperture.

With their respective V2 and V3, and now V4 on the LR side, they have been getting closer and then and flip-flopping over each in terms features. Aperture still holds a lot of advantages, and in some areas Lightroom has the tricks (and in some areas, others)

But switching your entire workflow tool is a big crazy step and if you are going to do it, you only want to do it once. But the Mac forums have many posts about people switching, then a new version of Aperture comes out and they feel they have to switch back because it's now the product they wanted. Madness.

Stick with your raw workflow and work around its limits. If those limits look like persisting indefinitely, and the work arounds become the lions share of your workflow, then clearly it's time to consider switching.

And clearly support of X-Trans could well be one of those limits, but I'd at least wait until Lightroom has solved the watercolour painting effect. As it stands at the moment it's hardly seems worth such an upheaval. What I dow with an unsupported new camera (as happened with the X100) is to shoot RAW+JPEG so you get the excellent JPEGs to use straight away. If/when you need to use the raw, round-trip it to your preferred processor. Wait for / Campaign for support.

Aperture is not the toy processor some people discard it as. Its organisational facilities are easily the best of the raw suites, but it's raw processing is also top drawer and among the very best. Lightroom has a few party tricks but I'm a bit tired of hearing about them parrot fashion, and if they were that relevant to me, guess which I'd be using.